All good comments, and for the record I am still against the delisting of 6 at the start of the year... however. Isn't the idea of delisting 6 meant to benefit the lower teams? If I am correct in interpreting the number one Misfit's comments... this is about equalisation in the league. The draft is meant to benefit the lower teams, so that they one day may be able to wrestle the director of winning role from the Chief. So that should be primarily what the delisting and draft process should be aiming to do... to give the lower teams a chance to draft their way into some sort of success (Richmond, North examples in the real world), or risk being a shambles if they get it wrong (Melbourne). The upper ranked teams should have to work harder to keep their list together, such is the price of fame. That all being said, I think cutting four at the end of the season is about right, with another two before the MSD, but that is purely my opinion.
Bandit wrote: Isn't the idea of delisting 6 meant to benefit the lower teams? If I am correct in interpreting the number one Misfit's comments... this is about equalisation in the league. The draft is meant to benefit the lower teams, so that they one day may be able to wrestle the director of winning role from the Chief. So that should be primarily what the delisting and draft process should be aiming to do... to give the lower teams a chance to draft their way into some sort of success (Richmond, North examples in the real world), or risk being a shambles if they get it wrong (Melbourne). The upper ranked teams should have to work harder to keep their list together, such is the price of fame. That all being said, I think cutting two at the end of the season is about right, with another two before the MSD, but that is purely my opinion. I was with you right up until the last point Bandit. To me, cutting two at the end of the season is counter to everything you said prior to that. Especially when we are now drafting out of a smaller pool than we have done previously (following the expanded squads). <div class='Quote' style='font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; color: #444444;]<em style='font-size: inherit;]Raptor wrote: <p style='margin-bottom: 18px; font-size: inherit;][span style='font-size: 10px;]I believe I can keep players - both young and old, both 250 games and 0 games... and go into the P.S.D. with 22 players. <p style='margin-bottom: 18px; font-size: inherit;]I believe an increased pool of players would be better for both equalisation<em style='font-size: inherit;]andmoving further forward from an elite position. <p style='margin-bottom: 18px; font-size: inherit;]Nota bene: you do not have to de-list 6 to reach the requirement of 22 at P.S.D. [span style='font-size: 14px; color: #000000;]The first part of Bandit's post and Raptor's points above pretty much sum up my views on this.
Damn typo, meant cutting four! modified my post, but left JC's alone because it needs to be retained in case anyone doubts how thick i can be at times!
For the Warriors, six at this point in time would hurt. The principle is; you give something away to gain something better (in a purely selfish sense). My first round pick is likely to go on a fancied rookie, my second round pick on probably an established or up and coming player. After that, you really have to compare what you are gaining from your 3rd - 6th round picks with the value of what you have discarded. And I doubt that in that pick range you are doing much building - more like adding or substituting. Fitzy's case is interesting, and bold. He has had to give up some quality for those low picks, thereby strengthening other teams. He now has a GWS-like opportunity to inject some quality youth. Hopefully he get's 3 out of 3 right. I know if I had those 3 low picks, I would happily delist 6. Rather, I am with Raptor's idea above and it is a pity really we did not venture down that path when we had the chance. But, of course, it is never too late.